Do collectors prefer coin books containing only expert information or are amateur contributions OK?

RogerB

One of my informal book research policies is to include photos, information and materials from collectors of the coin or series, and not limit books to just "expert" opinions and findings. The book on 1936-1942 proofs is a good example.

What do members think? Is one better or more "authoritative" than the other, or does it depend on the author's research and discretion?

AMRC

Can we define the difference? If you write the book that pretty much makes you worth something.

SiriusBlack

I would guess at the end of the day it is your opinion a reader would pay attention to because they would assume that if you are including amateur researchers or photos etc, that you personally approve of their information otherwise you wouldn't include it and place your name on the book.

ColonelJessup

Improperly-framed question

Being an amateur, which is to say not being a professional, is in no way mutually-exclusive with (or from) expertise.

Gene Gardner's work on Seated material seems a good illustration of the illogic.

Your use of their work is a testimony towards their expertise, whether it's their day job or not.

@SiriusBlack said:
… You personally approve of their information otherwise you wouldn't include it and place your name on the book.

This

Kudbegud

The content determines the value of information in the book. Professionals can write dreck. Amateurs can write wonderfully. Choose only the best representatives of the information you want to convey.

MFeld

@ColonelJessup said:
Improperly-framed question.

Being an amateur, which is to say not being a professional, is in no way mutually-exclusive with (or from) expertise.

Gene Gardner's work on Seated material seems a good illustration of the illogic.

Your use of their work is a testimony towards their expertise, whether it's their day job or not.

I agree. Worthy expertise is worthy expertise, regardless of what name you give the contributor.

coinkat

Please re-think the question. I am tired of the self proclaimed experts. Further, even if you were to re-think the question, please define what is a so-called expert and amateur in your view and what is the difference.

MFeld

@coinkat said:
Please re-think the question. I am tired of the self proclaimed experts. Further, even if you were to re-think the question, please define what is a so-called expert and amateur in your view and what is the difference.

Roger didn’t say anything about “self proclaimed experts”.

RogerB

I refer to mixing collector opinions, anecdotes and other information with that of persons who are generally accepted as "expert" in a particular subject or series.

As an example, in the 1936-42 Proof Coin book, there is much more materials from collectors than from prior authors and "experts." In this case, collectors had noticeably deeper insights into a short series that had limited previous research.

My question is how do members feel about this? Is it a problem not to see a lot of "big name" people mentioned, or is that immaterial.

coinkat

MFeld-

Self proclaimed expert is my term that I chose to use... I did not write that RogerB said or wrote that. And to be abundantly clear-it was not directed at him. Instead, it seems that we have to be aware of just how titles are used or perhaps misused in terms of what constitutes an expert or amateur

oldabeintx

@RogerB said:
I refer to mixing collector opinions, anecdotes and other information with that of persons who are generally accepted as "expert" in a particular subject or series.

As an example, in the 1936-42 Proof Coin book, there is much more materials from collectors than from prior authors and "experts." In this case, collectors had noticeably deeper insights into a short series that had limited previous research.

My question is how do members feel about this? Is it a problem not to see a lot of "big name" people mentioned, or is that immaterial.

From what I've observed, the study of US coins in particular has often been done and is often being done by people who are not employed as professional numismatists, dealers or writers. The field is vast and still open to "amateur" discoveries and contributions. I would say the big names are not needed unless you're preparing a coffee table book,

Oldhoopster

If you, as the author, perform due diligence in vetting the information, then good data is good data. The information will speak for itself. If a reader is critical that the source is not a "known expert", then that's their loss. However, if you include data/info sourced from "amatuers" that is incorrect, then that hurts your credibility

MFeld

@coinkat said:
MFeld-

Self proclaimed expert is my term that I chose to use... I did not write that RogerB said or wrote that. And to be abundantly clear-it was not directed at him. Instead, it seems that we have to be aware of just how titles are used or perhaps misused in terms of what constitutes an expert or amateur

Thanks for clearing that up for me - I had misunderstood your prior post.

rmorgan

Roger,

While I do want a book that is curated for expert content, it seems refreshing to me to have opinions and anecdotes from fellow collectors, those with experiences and perspectives like mine.

I recently bought Bowers' book on Lincoln cents after reading Lange's short forward in which he tells of his boyhood introduction to Lincolns and collecting. It was the story, and a story from a learning collector's perspective, that I remember and that motivated me buy and read this book.

As long as the author curates the selection of content, I welcome the mix of collector with recognized "experts."

Justacommeman

Welcome back Rick. You were missed

m

3keepSECRETif2rDEAD

...books should be for the pros...this place is for both

Treashunt

If you have good info, who cares what you label yourself

ricko

Good, useful input can come from various sources. Many amateur collectors have intense interest in their series, do research and study the material. They then may introduce insights or discoveries overlooked by previous 'experts' - or those regarded as such. A book should be judged on it's content, which is decided upon by the author. Cheers, RickO

oih82w8

As long as the material is credible, that is what would matter to me.

RogerB

It's the quality of information and credibility of authors/editors that are most important.

Aercus

As with any field of research, amateurs and professionals can both provide valuable contributions. I think the important thing is to have an experienced senior researcher at the helm.

Nap

Not all opinions are equal, even if they seem "credible"

That is akin to saying a celebrity's opinion on a scientific matter is worth the same as a scientist's. You hear this all the time, it irritates me to no end. An expert does deserve some respect for their expertise, whether you like their conclusion or not.

As there are no professional degrees or board certification in numismatics, an expert is defined by their knowledge, experience, publications, contributions to the field.

If a novice arrives at a better conclusion than an expert, one of two things is usually true:
1) the novice obtained good information from an uncredited expert
2) the novice is more of an expert than you thought

I will always defer to an expert over a novice. I also agree that an expert could be a professional dealer, a collector, or even a historian, those titles are not related to level of expertise.

oldabeintx

Harry Bass was both an amateur and an expert in his field, as were and are many others. Enough said?